|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On June 21 2017 03:08 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 02:08 Nyxisto wrote:On June 21 2017 01:32 RvB wrote:
Guns are easy to get if you really want them. It doesn't have a lot to do with France in particular. I don't know what your definition of easy is but I have no idea how to get an illegal AK and I would be surprised if this wouldn't cost a good deal of money. Also it doesn't really seem to be that easy for terrorists in several other countries where they've largely resorted to knifes or car attacks. Easy enough that I'm able to get some if I wanted. In addition there's the deep web which made getting illegal things like this a lot easier. Sure it costs a great deal of cash but that hardly matters when you're suiciding anyway.
That great deal of cash is in the mid 4digits according to enough sources who tried it.
|
On June 21 2017 02:08 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 01:32 RvB wrote:
Guns are easy to get if you really want them. It doesn't have a lot to do with France in particular. I don't know what your definition of easy is but I have no idea how to get an illegal AK and I would be surprised if this wouldn't cost a good deal of money. Also it doesn't really seem to be that easy for terrorists in several other countries where they've largely resorted to knifes or car attacks.
I think this reflects more on where you live than anything else tbh. If you've lived in any capitol/major city for an extended period of time it quickly becomes fairly obvious where weapons and drugs can be acquired.
I understand the thought-process behind extrapolating from the recent types of attacks to which weapons are easily acquirable, but I think it is flawed. Car/knife attacks are likely conducted because it requires less planning to pull off and has the same impact. Death toll is really not what is important to the terrorists when they conduct these attacks.
|
Reports of bombs exploding in Brussels Central Station.
Here we go again...
Lots of police etc present. The guy has already been shot. No clue about casualties yet.
|
|
|
That picture is very surreal.
|
What is it, i can't make it out.
|
On June 21 2017 04:53 Reaps wrote:
What is it, i can't make it out.
I'd assume that's a person.
|
Reportedly no casualties, only the bomber.
|
And that's not a person on fire in that picture as far as I know.
|
On June 21 2017 04:57 Laurens wrote:
Reportedly no casualties, only the bomber.
More importantly, soldiers shot him. Afaik they're also in a state of emergency, like france.
Not really clear how it happened, but considering that it is reported that he had a vest and is supposedly a suicide bomber, it's quite possible that soldiers shot him and then it exploded. Wouldn't make much sense the other way around.
Sidenote, the whole "but deepweb lulz" stuff is utter garbage. Try buying a weapon there, we'll see how well that works out. I don't understand why people think the deepweb is some form of "lawless zone" where police is magically prohibited, they're not. You're anonymous as long as you don't buy anything, but to buy an AK you have to meet with someone.
I'd bet that at least 6 out of 10 times, you'll be greeted by a badge if you try.
No, these weapons have a legal (back then) background. Take the weapons of the Bataclan attack for example. The alleged AK47s (which in fact were Ceska Sa vz.58) were re-deadlified collectors guns (modified to shoot blanks/reversed to shoot live ammunition). Generally, assault rifles come from the balkans though:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/following-the-path-of-the-paris-terror-weapons-a-1083461.html
But weapons stolen from militaries or police forces are also available, as in the case of the Copenhagen attacks, which resulted in two deaths. And then there are all of the Kalashnikovs from the Balkans that find their way on a variety of paths to Western Europe. Following the Charlie Hebdo attacks, police confiscated two such weapons used in the killings; after the Paris massacres last November, they impounded six of them.
|
How Angel Merkel is still in power is beyond me. I also learned that her and her party is the reason that gay marriage isn't allowed in Germany thus preventing a continental wide agreement on the issue.
|
How can you spend so much time on reading news about everything and still be so ignorant about basic things? What does an attack perpetrated probably by a person born in Europe have to do with Merkel? Germans have their equivalent of gay marriage, it just has a different name afaik. How is Germany alone capable of preventing continental wide agreement on the issue?
I don't mean to insult you, but you keep blaming Merkel for terrorism in Europe in a way that makes it look like you think she has more power in Europe than American presidents have in their country.
|
Merkel is in power precisely because she doesn't sacrifice political capital on the altar of values. Gay marriage (civil union hold same rights anyway) would alienate a ton of Conservatives voters and gain her little.
If Merkel has one thing then it is an intimate feel for power. She knows exactly which hills aren't worth dying on.
|
I firmly believe that Merkel would easily be able to think about it deeply and if a majority of her core voters are pro open marriage she will make a u turn similar to Fukushima
|
Germany3128 Posts
On June 21 2017 06:01 Artisreal wrote:
I firmly believe that Merkel would easily be able to think about it deeply and if a majority of her core voters are pro open marriage she will make a u turn similar to Fukushima
Yeah think so, too. With the big shift of the CDU to the centre, gay marriage is the one thing Merkel currently still can't push if she doesn't want to allienate the more conservative wing of the CDU and especially the idiots(read: CSU) in Bavaria.
I think the general consensus is, that Merkel doesn't have a problem with gay marriage itself but that this is a topic which may result in her losing alot of her political capital. If there is a way to push for complete gay marriage without losing alot of support she would probably go for it. Currently it's 'just' the one thing she has to (sadly) sacrifice 
Also @StealthBlue: Who would take over after Merkel? There is just no one in the position to do so. While I dislike her personally she is probably the most capable politician in Germany currently. Also she rarely does mistakes that could be directly linked to her.
|
Maybe she'll sell it as a compromise after the next government negotiations to avoid taking a hit herself.
But given that she's fundamentally changed the Conservative position on society and immigration, has abolished nuclear energy, and has ended conscription it's a little ridiculous to act like she's some kind of reactionary. She's modernised the party as fast as it is basically feasible. The balance of taking over urban and immigrant voters while at the same time keeping the traditional voters is strategically smart and an instinct that seems to be completely lost on American liberals, which is ironic because Bill Clinton invented the whole 'triangulation' thing
|
On June 21 2017 05:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:How Angel Merkel is still in power is beyond me. I also learned that her and her party is the reason that gay marriage isn't allowed in Germany thus preventing a continental wide agreement on the issue. https://twitter.com/AP/status/877257946039713792
Wow, someone has a pet peeve, huh?
How's merkel responsible for that? Apart from the obvious fact that her party is called the christian democratic union, which is germanies most conservative party. Guess what they WON'T vote for. The foundation of the party was members of a party called "Catholic Centre Party". Duh, the conservatives/religious are against gay marriage. In other news, water is wet.
Like, jesus. How legal would you think gay marriage would be in the US if you had a conservative president/senate/congress for the last 16 years? Even with democratic presidents you still barely have it in some states.
But yeah, clearly merkels fault.
edit:
That fire picture is according to n24 next to the shot person.
|
There's something very surreal about that animal poster. And the piller of flame in the middle of a train station.
|
@Merkel being in power: She's the leader of the conservatives, if a major German party with a chance to get elected was to fight against immigration, it's her CDU (and the right wing already does). Germany has been spared from terrorists for the most part though and the immigration wave has ebbed a bit.
Aside from that the entire "terrorists are current immigrants"-narrative has very little going for itself. Sure there are immigrant-children/grandchildren who do terrorist acts atm., but very few actual recent immigrants. So the discussion atm is more about successful integration and on the right side about a leading culture in Germany than about mass deportations.
Also the CDU being without real alternatives on the right side allowed Merkel to make the party relatively progressive, which in turn left the social democrats without clear differences and the less prominent leader. The SPD on the other side can't just move further left, since she is already sharing the left pool with two other left parties.
|
What about the FDP and AfD? they both are right-wing alternatives. They just barely didn't make the 5% threshold last election, but they will make it in the upcoming elections.
I am expecting many conservatives to turn their back on the CDU in the years to come, unless the AfD implodes. Which won't happen, the demand for such a party is way to high at this point. The AfD will live simply by people on the right wanting it to live.
Merkel is on dangerous ground, her refugee politics were never fueled by some form of liberalism, only by the German constitution forcing her to be somewhat open. (She wanted to close the borders, she was adviced that it would be against the law) Yet she is creating a story of a middle-of-the-road party, which alienates right-wing voters and drives them towards the AfD. She is mirroring Schröder's way and there is no turning back for the party, once they have given up ground on the radical end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
